The Washington critic., 1887-11-12
A LEGisLATIVE BLUNDER.
No Foreign Power Can Buy Real Es-
fata l, NyuatIny tim.

ernment or Its representative at Wash
ington, from purchasing property for
an official residence for the minister or
for offices of the legation in the District
Of Columbia
The reply has invariably been In the
negative, and 1t is only when shown
The act that the point has been con.
ceded. The bill was approved March
8, 1887, and the first section reads Us
follows:
An act to restrict tho ownership Of real
estate In the Territories to American citizens
and 20 forth.
Be It enacted by the Senate and House OF
Representatives Of the United States OF
America In Congress assembled, That II
shall be unlawful for any person or persons
not citizens Of the United States, or who
have not lawfully declared their intention
to become such citizens, or for any corpora
tion not created by or under the laws Of the
United States or OF some State or Territory
Of the United States, to hereafter acquire,
hold, or own real estate so hereafter &C.
quired, or any interest therein, in any OF the
Territories OF the United States or In the
District OF Columbia, except such as may
be acquired by inheritance or In good faith
In the ordinary course Of Justice In the col.
vided, That the prohibition of this section
shall not apply to cases In which the right
to hold or dispose of lands In the United
States is secured by existing treaties to the
citizens or subjects Of foreign countries,
which rights, so far 90 they may exist by
force OF any such treaty, shall continue TO
exist so long as such treaties are In force.
and no longer.
Now, that's what might be called
Uut
folks have clamored for 1t, and now
we've got 1t.
1t might I'LL with delight the heart
Of "Richelieu" Robinson, as q step
towards what he advocated in his speech
on what he called the Diplomacy of
Snobs"-the abolition of our entire
diplomatic service. -Four foreign gov.
ernments-the German, British, Japan.
ese and Mexican -already own legation
buildings here, their right to which
nations desire to follow their example
1t, under pains and penalties, they
why such discrimination has been
recall their ministers accredited to the
penalties for violation of the provis.
Ions of the act, as set forth in section 4,
are truly appalling, to wit: "That all
violation of the provisions of this act
shall be forfeited to the United States,
and II shall be the duty OF the Attor.
ney. General to enforce every such
forfeiture by bill in equity or other
proper process"
Some persons having thought that
the clause, excepting from the prohi.
billion of the first section, leases in
which the right to held or dispose OF
lands In the United States Is secured by
existing treaties TO the citizens or sub.
jeCts of foreign countries" would In.
clude in the exception the case OF q
foreign government desiring to acquire
property for legation In the District
Of Columbia, inquiry was made at the
Department OF State as to there being
any provision OF the kind In any ex.
listing treaty that would cover the
ground, and the answer was that there
was nothing In any of the treaties which
would by any Interpretation constitute
an exception to the provisions of the
act.
So there is nothing to relieve the ma
tion or its minister who might acquire
real estate In the District of Columbia
Of these pains and penalties prescribed
In the last section of the act, including
the enforcing Of bill Ia equity to
forfeit the real estate 10 the United
States by the Attorney General. From
the consequences of such suit no for
eign minister, however "multifarious, "
could hope to escape, even If Joined In
matrimonial alliance with an Ameri.
can citizen, which Is possibly what is
meant by the "joinder Of parties" as
expressed In the bill.
1t might even discourage the inter.
national matrimonial alliances which,
or hopes of which, have been, as 1t
were, among the bulwarks Of our gay
society, and so many gentlemen Of the
Diplomatic Corps are unmarried, too
What can Congress mean by declar
Ing war in this way against our most
cherished institutions, and blocking
the sale of real estate to desirable resi-
dents In the District Of Columbia as
well?
AS often happens, Congress didn't
mean to do what 1t did do in this case,
and very few, II any, of those who
voted for the law are aware of what
its practical working would be In
Washington. 1t Is a surprise to Con.
gressmen to learn that the District is
explicitly named In the bill at all.
But joking apart, the law does pro-
hibit, as 1t now stands, the acquisition
In future of property In this city for
official purposes, or any, by foreign
governments, or their representatives.
When last summer the Swedish Minis.
ter, NJ. de Reuterskiold, desired to pur.
chase a residence here for himself. he
could not ION account of this law buy
one In his own name, SO had to evaie
tie law, and have the property bough,
for him by an American citizen, with
the understanding that 1t should be
turned over to him, which, however,
does not make the Swedish Minister &
title to 1t as good as he would desire.
Those to whom the writer has spoken
on this subject, including some high
legal authorities In the Government
Departments and several members OF
the last Congress, have with one accord
said that 1t was most desirable to en-
courage foreign nations to own legation
buildings in our National Capital, their
doing so being strong guarantee of
their wish to perpetuate friendly rela'
tions with our country, "a consumma.
tion devoutly TO be wished"
Senator Morrill,, when asked the
question at the beginning of this article,
promptly denied that Congress had
directly or indirectly, forbidden the
acquisition of real estate In the District
of Columbia by a foreign Government
,, for the use of Its legation, or by for
eign Minister for his own residence
but when shown the law said no Other
Interpretation could be put upon 1t a'